The editors of the hamburg review of social sciences are glad to present issue 2 of volume 6, which again deals with revealing and contemporary topics: The first two contributions focus on different aspects of surveillance, security and the political consequences of mandatory data retention; the third article discusses security and flexibility using the example of the Austrian labor market. The author of the last contribution reviews three discussion papers of the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn. Once again, this article deals with labor market issues and the importance of ethnic identity for labor market success.
The first paper by Marie-Helen Maras investigates the political consequences of mass data retention. On the one hand Maras illustrates why widespread political resistance against the implementation of an EU-wide mass surveillance measure (Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC) did not arise. On the other hand the author analyses the shift from a more targeted mode of surveillance to one of mass surveillance in the contemporary European Union. Marie-Helen Maras emphasizes the extent of democratic accountability and the lack of transparency within the EU legislative decision-making-process. She points out that the individuals’ use of the three underlying sources of error (availability heuristic, probability neglect, prospect theory) in their assessment of the risk of terrorism and the presentation of the current threat of terrorism by politicians, governments, and the media have muted dissent and may even have fostered an environment of tolerance as well as public support for the introduction of draconian laws aimed at combating terrorism.
The author of the second article is Gregor Wiedemann. His contribution is closely related to the first, as it deals with the expansion of governmental and non-governmental surveillance under the pretext of securitization policies. In dealing with this topic Wiedemann concentrates on the critical discourse or rather on the lack of critique which indeed leads to pivotal changes in politics or individual behavior. One of the main questions is: Why do just a few citizens revolt against the developments towards a surveillance state? And much more fascinating: Why is an increasing amount of people willing to show and share their privacy to a completely unknown public sphere? In contrast to the trade-off between security and freedom proclaimed by the liberal critics of surveillance this article introduces a differentiation between liberal and illiberal governmentality. Conclusively the author utters for the implication of radical criticism into surveillance critique.
The third article deals with the concept of flexicurity in Austria. Flexicurity has become an essential part of the European Employment Strategy and is designed to empower nation states to face impending and increasing labor market challenges. The author Tobias Hinterseer, firstly summarizes the main characteristics of the concept of flexicurity, concerning empirical data of previous studies. Therefore he discusses Austrian flexicurity implications in the context of the European policies. Secondly the paper focuses on the impact flexicurity has on three specific and relevant law making processes in Austria (e.g. revision of legislation amendment in working hours). Concluding the author argues, that flexicurity in Austria is almost not different to the traditional Austrian Social Partnership only but operating under a new label.
The last contribution, by Heiko Berner, reviews three discussion papers dealing with the influence of ethnic identity on the labor market situation of migrants in Germany. The reviewed literature seeks to answer the question how and to what extent ethnic identity and labor market success are relevant for social integration. Based on social psychology models ethnic identity is differentiated into four regimes, namely: assimilation, integration, separation and marginalization. Not only remaining on a theoretical discourse, the empirical verification shows for example that assimilation is not necessarily an advantage.
Nina-Sophie Fritsch and Roland Verwiebe